Climate Change | Matters of Public Importance | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-04-02.75.2&m=684#g82.1
Tasmanians are not afraid of clean, green renewable energy. It is part of our industrial heritage. It's part of our state identity, our history. We understand hydroelectric generation, our...Tasmanians are not afraid of clean, green renewable energy. It is part of our industrial heritage. It's part of our state identity, our history. We understand hydroelectric generation, our world-class wind resource and the advantages of small- and large-scale solar. Our world-leading Australian Maritime College, the AMC, leads research on wave and tidal energy research. In the national context, we have much work to do to repair the damage and division around energy created and/or perpetuated by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. That work can commence under a Shorten Labor government if elected. A Shorten Labor government will reduce pollution, invest in renewable energy and take real action on climate change to ensure that we hand a better deal to the next generation.

After six years of chaos, uncertainty and rising pollution under the Liberals, Australians need stability and certainty on climate change policy. That's what our plan delivers. Last week, I welcomed the member for Shortland and shadow assistant minister for climate change and energy to Launceston to announce the potential of a clean, green industrial process for the production of hydrogen in northern Tasmania, with an immediate commitment to a feasibility study of $250,000 towards hydrogen production in Northern Tasmania. The study will identify the best opportunities for northern Tasmania to be part of a supply chain in the globally massive industry, a $232 billion global juggernaut. Labor have committed $1.1 billion of funding to our national hydrogen strategy to develop a hydrogen industry in this country. Tasmania is well placed to tap into that industry.

We have three distinct advantages in Tasmania: boundless renewable energy with some of the world's best wind resources, access to water and power through our hydro system and a deepwater port to transport that hydrogen product to Japan and South Korea. This opportunity could produce thousands of jobs for Northern Tasmania within my electorate. We already know that Tasmania has been and should be a centre of excellence when it comes to advanced manufacturing. Hydrogen would be another great manufacturing industry in Northern Tasmania where Tasmania would help to decarbonise the rest of the world.

The development of the hydrogen industry in Australia is one part of Labor's plan for ensuring Tasmania capitalises on the benefits of Australia's transition to renewable energy. Labor's plan will tackle climate change to keep the economy growing by investing in renewable energy, boosting clean transport and infrastructure, working in partnership with business and supporting trade exposed industries to keep Australian businesses competitive, helping the land sector to cut pollution whilst giving farmers and the forestry industry new opportunities to earn income, and developing Australia's first national strategy on climate change and health to address the growing health impacts and risks of climate change. This is in stark contrast to those opposite.

The government has failed to deliver lower pollution, failed to lower power prices and failed to strengthen the economy through real action on climate change. Theirs is a party of climate sceptics who are absolutely hopelessly divided on climate change. The Liberals have helped push up power prices by having 13 different energy policies, undermining investment in renewable energy, supporting taxpayer money for new coal plants and backing power privatisation. In fact, just one day after Labor announced the most comprehensive climate change action plan taken to a federal election by a major party in this country's history, the Prime Minister confirmed that the Liberals are proposing to spend taxpayers' dollars on new coal-fired power stations. This is a disgraceful display. After almost six years in government, the Liberals are still making up energy policy on the run, reaching their 13th energy policy in six years—a dangerous, reckless energy policy; an energy policy that adopts coal, which will have the direct effect of undermining Project Marinus and the Battery of the Nation, something all Tasmanians and, indeed, all Australians should beware of. This government doesn't understand renewable energy. It doesn't understand the fact that renewable energy offers a clean future for Australia.

]]>2019-04-02T15:52:00+00:00Launceston Smart Fuelers, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission | Constituency Statements | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-13.161.1&m=684#g161.2
Under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, cost-of-living pressures are rising, yet we see on a regular basis record company profits and CEO bonuses with absolutely no relief for workers,...Under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, cost-of-living pressures are rising, yet we see on a regular basis record company profits and CEO bonuses with absolutely no relief for workers, with real wage increases consigned to the never-never. People in my electorate are crying out for a government that shows leadership on issues that matter to them—a government that can deliver relief to hardworking Tasmanians. That's why, under a Shorten-led Labor government, if elected, the majority of people in Northern Tasmania will see their tax burden reduced, particularly those on lower incomes, who will receive Labor's bigger, better tax cut, giving some initial relief to the rising cost-of-living pressures.

One group in my electorate decided to take action rather than simply complaining. They started the group Launceston Smart Fuelers, who aim to put downward pressure on petrol prices by working together through collective action. This is a fantastic grassroots community initiative. I applaud the group and its leaders for taking this issue on.

I've been speaking to David McCormick from the Launceston Smart Fuelers, who have already written to the ACCC and have asked why they've not acted on their very real concerns about price gouging at the fuel pump. David has told my office that, despite being told he'd receive a response to this inquiry within 15 days, he's heard nothing. David has also been directly speaking to the fuel companies, who, it seems, simply aren't interested.

In this incompetent government's first term, it sacked 10 per cent of the staff of the ACCC, undermining the ability for it to regulate some of the most powerful corporations in Australia, including the banks and the petrol companies. We all heard during the banking royal commission that unregulated big corporations have taken advantage of Australian consumers in the absence of proper regulation.

For everyday Australians like David and the over 10,000 consumers who've joined or have indicated support for the Launceston Smart Fuelers group, Labor wants to see more power for the ACCC so it can take action against fuel retailers who take advantage of their customers. One of the biggest problems is that regulators need more than the power to act. They also need a budget to act. Labor's plan, if elected, is to give the regulator more powers, to make sure that there are tougher penalties and to ensure that regulators have a budget and the ability to enforce them.

This is about giving the regulator real power to take action against anticompetitive behaviour. Governments can't and shouldn't regulate fuel prices. Proper competition amongst retailers and wholesalers is the best way to drive down prices. Labor will increase penalties for anticompetitive and anticonsumer conduct, double the ACCC's litigation budget and give the ACCC an independent market studies function so it can explore public interest issues including this vital issue.

]]>2019-02-13T10:18:00+00:00Tasmania: Housing Affordability | Constituency Statements | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-12.153.1&m=684#g153.2
I rise to speak today about a disturbing increase in the number of constituents approaching my office for assistance in locating housing&#8212;in particular, public housing. Prime Minister Scott...I rise to speak today about a disturbing increase in the number of constituents approaching my office for assistance in locating housing—in particular, public housing. Prime Minister Scott Morrison wants to give tax cuts to the big banks and to the top end of town instead of funding services that ordinary Tasmanians need. Tasmanians are waiting longer to access health care through our public hospital system. State public servants are seeking reasonable increases in their wages and incomes, trying to match increases in all the expenses that average families have to meet. There are still people for whom access to health care, education and basic government services is, in a word, academic.

These are people who have children. These are people trying to live fulfilling lives, but they cannot if they cannot get access to housing. We think of homelessness as representing a group of people almost in the abstract. We can fail to think of them as individuals—people entitled to dignity and safety. Public housing should be available, particularly for those who are assessed with urgent needs. These people are placed on a waiting list and have been supposedly allocated priority. But what sort of priority is this? The waiting list now exceeds two years.

What of the constituent who approached my office for assistance with obtaining housing for him and his two-year-old child? This man, Troy, has been allocated accommodation through the public housing system. The organisation administering this public resource gave him notice to vacate his property because they intended to renovate the property. He will be homeless by the end of February. Time and time again I have constituents approaching my office for assistance with similar stories—parents with young children who want to ensure that they do not drag their children to unfamiliar schools, exposing their children to additional stress and dislocation. Rebecca is a single mum of four children. She's a full-time nursing student. She applied with Housing Tasmania last year, and no suitable properties were available. She camped with her children before going into emergency accommodation. She secured a private rental with no assistance from Housing Tasmania or, indeed, from the minister's office.

There are constituents who've sought public housing in order to re-establish connections with their children who are within the child protection system. There are people who are couch surfing, living in tents and subject to the risk of violence, theft of their belongings and further stress and anxiety. There are no time frames given for these people to be allocated suitable properties. They just have to wait. This is not good enough.

]]>2019-02-12T16:26:00+00:00Tasmania: Hospitals | Statements by Members | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-12-06.32.1&m=684#g32.2
Overnight, we've seen the release of the Institute of Health and Welfare's annual hospital statistics, and they paint a disturbing picture for Tasmanian patients. One in 10 Tasmanians presenting...Overnight, we've seen the release of the Institute of Health and Welfare's annual hospital statistics, and they paint a disturbing picture for Tasmanian patients. One in 10 Tasmanians presenting to our emergency departments face a wait of nine hours and 41 minutes to be seen. It's the longest waiting time of any state. Last year, Tasmania's elective surgery waiting list grew by 2,385 people. At the same time, there were 1,623 fewer admissions from the list—a fall of 8.5 per cent. On average, Tasmanians needing vital cardiothoracic surgery are waiting 46 days—that is 20 days longer than any other state. One in 10 of these patients face a 138-day waiting period—40 days longer than any other state. Tasmanians rightly expect that, when they get sick, they receive the best treatment possible, without facing lengthy waiting times. That's why, if elected, a federal Labor government will invest $30 million to address Tasmania's elective surgery backlog, delivering almost 3,000 extra procedures and boosting our health workforce. Whilst the Liberals keep cutting health, Tasmanians can be assured that Labor will put patients first and fix our hospitals. ]]>2018-12-06T13:31:00+00:00Bass Electorate: Water | Statements by Members | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-12-03.52.1&m=684#g52.2
I'd like to talk about a small town called Pioneer in north-eastern Tasmania. We heard earlier today the presentation of a report dealing with PFAS contamination, which of course affects the...I'd like to talk about a small town called Pioneer in north-eastern Tasmania. We heard earlier today the presentation of a report dealing with PFAS contamination, which of course affects the right of citizens of Australia to receive clean drinking water. Everybody obviously has a reasonable expectation of clean drinking water. Much work has been done within Tasmania by the organisation TasWater in order to ensure that our remote small communities are receiving clean and safe drinking water. But a study was done in 2012 which indicated that there was lead contamination at Pioneer. A health alert was issued. There was lead in the water source and soil materials. A service replacement program was initiated. Ninety per cent of the town of Pioneer supported this service replacement program. The program was to install tanks and infrastructure to enable the collection of clean, safe rainwater. Existing roofs were to be tested, in particular, for lead contamination, and here's the rub: unfortunately, by whatever means, there's been a breakdown in communication and in the delivery of service to this community. Residents have the concern that their lead-contaminated roofs have not been tested. TasWater needs to come and own up to exactly what is happening with the clean water which is supposed to be delivered to this community. Every community deserves clean water. ]]>2018-12-03T13:51:00+00:00Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-12-03.34.2&m=684#g35.1
In fact, I was planning to speak in continuation, since I was speaking earlier last week regarding the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, to observe the fact that...In fact, I was planning to speak in continuation, since I was speaking earlier last week regarding the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, to observe the fact that this government appears to have a problem with women. We've had since then a motion to suspend standing orders. The defence to the suspension of standing orders was not that the government didn't have a problem with women but rather that this side of the House, the Labor Party, didn't want to speak about important matters that were before the parliament. That defence was absolute nonsense because there are, by my count, 32 speakers on this side ready to speak on government legislation—32 speakers from Labor ready to speak about issues that are important to the Australian public—and only one government member who is prepared to speak on any legislation today. So that defence obviously fails utterly.

We have a government that doesn't take women seriously. We have a government whose own Minister for Women has indicated that the Liberal Party is 'anti-women', if she's been correctly quoted. We have a Prime Minister who has different priorities. He prefers to attend other events within this parliament rather than to attend the family violence event Our Watch.

Back to the point at hand: the vital issue of family and domestic violence. I was talking, before I was interrupted, about the costs of being involved in domestic and family violence and what it costs to leave an abusive relationship. The costs of leaving an abusive relationship can be significant, they can be immediate and they can be long term. The costs will include relocation—including lease-break costs, costs to repair damaged furniture and/or a damaged tenancy, and the cost of finding alternative accommodation—medical and counselling bills, increased transportation costs, including loss of access to a car, and lost earnings. The ACTU has placed a total figure in the typical case at approximately $18,000. Postdoctoral research fellow Kate Farhill has noted the considerable disadvantage flowing through a victim's life. It can adversely affect lifetime earnings. Some studies from the United States show a 25 per cent loss in income associated with domestic violence and abuse. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that around two out of three women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce.

There can be no doubt that a comprehensive response to domestic and family violence must involve a workplace response. Other jurisdictions have introduced paid domestic violence leave. Labor believes that Australia's federal workplace system should also provide support and a workplace entitlement. In July this year New Zealand legislated paid family and domestic violence leave, guaranteeing 10 days paid leave for all workers who are experiencing violence and need to escape. Queensland, Western Australia and the ACT all offer 10 days paid domestic violence leave to their public service employees, whilst South Australia offers 15 days and Victoria 20.

Many employers also provide paid family and domestic violence leave to their workforce through their enterprise agreements. More than 1,000 enterprise agreements approved under the Fair Work Act between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2017 provide for 10 or more days of paid domestic and family violence leave. These include flagship companies such as Carlton & United Breweries, Telstra, the National Australia Bank, Virgin Australia, IKEA and Qantas. These employers are to be congratulated, as they have paved the way and helped reduce the stigma that often accompanies domestic and family violence.

The union movement is to be congratulated for its campaign for paid family and domestic violence leave over many years and for its role in negotiating domestic leave coverage in Australian workplaces. Labor knows that many small businesses, where employers and employees have close working relationships, already provide the important support for staff to take paid leave to deal with the consequences of domestic violence. We know that, in addition to the terrible personal and social cost of domestic violence, it is a significant cost to business. In May 2016, KPMG estimated the cost of violence against women and their children on production and on the business sector at $1.9 billion for 2015-16.

Labor has listened to victims. Labor has listened to front-line workers, businesses, unions and organisations who are at the forefront of domestic violence prevention. Their clear message is that people who have experienced domestic violence need more support in the workplace. We all benefit from a range of social supports. Social isolation creates and perpetuates many problems, including psychological and physical health issues. For some women, their workplace provides a vital support mechanism. Work colleagues and empathetic employers may be the most important support they can receive in this situation. They can also provide an important oasis away from conflict.

The government's response, whilst welcomed, has its shortfalls. I'm concerned, yet again, that this bill is 'too little, too late' from a government which is increasingly seen as completely out of touch. The Liberals do not support paid domestic violence leave; they should do so. This parliament should support paid domestic violence leave. I commend the bill to the House.

]]>2018-12-03T13:02:00+00:00Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-11-29.11.1&m=684#g23.1
In February this year, I met with representatives from the Australian Services Union. Some of their members had come to ask me to sign their We Won't Wait pledge. The objective of the We Won't...In February this year, I met with representatives from the Australian Services Union. Some of their members had come to ask me to sign their We Won't Wait pledge. The objective of the We Won't Wait campaign is to get 10 days of paid family violence leave under the National Employment Standards, the NES, so that all Australian workers have access to this important support.

The contents of the pledge are as follows: 'I recognise the critical need for all sectors of society to work to prevent and respond to family violence. Workplaces are not immune to family violence, and workers attempting to survive the impacts of family violence need time to relocate and address legal issues, the welfare of their families and their own wellbeing. Maintaining employment through the process is critical to securing their family's long-term safety. For these reasons, I support the We Won't Wait campaign to make family violence leave available to all Australian workers.' I was proud to put my name to this pledge, and I'm proud that Labor is leading the way on this very important issue, having announced in December 2017 that an elected Labor government would legislate for 10 days paid family violence leave in the National Employment Standards.

Domestic and family violence is a scourge on our community without regard to income or social status. A recent report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that:

One in 6 Australian women and 1 in 16 men have been subjected, since the age of 15, to physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous cohabiting partner …

The same report indicated that:

Family, domestic and sexual violence happens repeatedly—more than half (54%) of the women who had experienced current partner violence, experienced more than one violent incident …

White Ribbon Australia has some scarily similar statistics, again, emphasising the scope and urgency of the problem: that one in four children in Australia are exposed to domestic violence, that domestic and family violence is the principal cause of homelessness for women and/or their children, that violence against women is estimated to cost the Australian economy $21.7 billion each year, and that oft quoted figure—that is, over 12 months, on average, one woman is killed every week in Australia by a current or former partner. This is a shame. It's a national tragedy.

A person who is trying to remove themselves and their family from domestic violence should not be further burdened by the rational fear that, in making the request to have time off to deal with that situation, that could result in the loss of their job, nor should they see resignation from employment as the only way forward to get the time that they need. I'm pleased that the government has acknowledged the impact that family and domestic violence have on employers and employees in the workplace. We see this response to this issue in this legislation—that is, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018.

This bill proposes to amend the NES to provide all employees with an entitlement to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. This is in line with a recent decision from the Fair Work Commission to include a clause for five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave in all modern awards. The model clause from the FWC notes that often it is impractical to do the things that you need to do when dealing with the impacts of family violence outside of ordinary working hours. This is, of course, self-evident, practical and sensible for things like finding accommodation, securing an appropriate apprehended violence order from the police, seeking legal advice, getting medical treatment, seeing a counsellor or perhaps attending court hearings. All of these issues take time and, of course, they do not fit in with an out-of-hours schedule to suit a person's working arrangements. I say again: these are not things that can wait until a weekend, until the end of a shift or the end of a work day. For this reason, domestic and family violence leave should be a universal workplace right, not something that relies upon the goodwill of an employer; although I do know that there are many who would act with the sort of empathy necessary to help someone through this sort of crisis. For this reason, Labor will not be opposing this bill.

This bill is certainly a step in the right direction. However, we on this side of the House do not believe that it goes far enough. Labor's commitment, as I said earlier, is for 10 days paid family violence leave—paid. It is absolutely essential that domestic and family violence leave is paid leave available to every Australian worker. I'm concerned that with this legislation the government is saying that only the women who can afford to take unpaid leave are entitled to take the time required to remove themselves from a domestic violence situation, remove themselves to protect their families, remove themselves to seek support, to seek safety.

It is a fact that women are more likely to be in insecure work, or working casually or part time whilst also taking on the caring responsibility for their family. Often this means that taking unpaid leave will put them at even more financial disadvantage. If a woman is in the situation of needing to take family and domestic violence leave, it's likely that she is also counting on continuing to receive a pay cheque and being able to go back to work while she takes on the task of dealing with the impacts of family violence. A March 2018 article in The Conversation by post-doctoral research fellow Kate Farhall noted there has been research into the costs leaving an abusive relationship. These costs can be many, they can be immediate, and the costs can be long term. The costs will include relocation, including lease-break costs, costs to—

]]>2018-11-29T13:22:00+00:00Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-11-28.124.1&m=684#g130.1
We have received a sermon from the minister regarding a failure to act but, if any party in government has failed to act, it is the coalition. This is a government which, time and time again,...We have received a sermon from the minister regarding a failure to act but, if any party in government has failed to act, it is the coalition. This is a government which, time and time again, talk a big game in regulation but absolutely fail in regulation. We saw them fail in regulation with respect to the empowerment of ASIC, the funding of ASIC and the enforcement powers of ASIC. They opposed a royal commission into banking misconduct. The now Prime Minister dismissed the calls for a royal commission and voted against a royal commission 26 times. The government speak of ASIC. At the time, they dismissed the call for the appointment of a royal commission as being a 'tough cop on the beat'. But it wasn't a tough cop on the beat at all. That much is perfectly clear in the revelations in the royal commission.

This government failed to properly fund its regulators. It is clear to me that it was captured and continues to be captured by big business. All of us have been shocked by the revelations of the royal commission, notwithstanding that we are aware of the substance of the misconduct alleged. It is important that we do consider the fact that we were all aware of the substance of what was being alleged. You would have to be sleeping under the proverbial rock to not be aware of it. What did this government do? It said it was giving additional powers to ASIC, powers that have never been exercised, powers that have never been used to prosecute any offenders with respect to malfeasance.

More can be done. This bill is a good start. More should be done, even if this government have done in this bill only what they thought they can get away with. What did they think they can get away with? The minimum. Perhaps not a light touch because they have increased the penalties, but certainly lighter than what the community demands as an appropriate and proportionate response. After all, this is a delayed response.

The bill increases penalties. It should do so. Those increased penalties, as my friend the shadow minister said, are inadequate. This bill, in implementation of the ASIC enforcement review task force, is delayed. The recommendations that this bill is based upon are now completely out of date. The bill implements the recommendations of that task force report which was released in December 2017, a time before the establishment of the royal commission and certainly before the royal commission received any of the evidence which has so shocked Australian families and has shocked everyone in this place.

The proposed amendments are to increase maximum jail terms for the most serious corporate crimes. It's completely inappropriate for this minister to get on his high horse and accuse Labor of using this for political purposes when what we are doing is completely proportionate. We are doing what the public expects when we introduce the regulation which, clearly, the public expects to see our legislators arguing for. We on this side of the House are certainly prepared to stand up to this government in arguing for increased penalties. Any talk of a race towards the bottom regarding these penalties is absolute nonsense. That is an attempt by those opposite to deflect their longstanding culpability in opposing for over 300 days the establishment of the royal commission and seeking to deflect the royal commission with the assertion that ASIC would be the tough cop on the beat.

We know that more needs to be done and that more can be done, and this side of the House is prepared to ensure that appropriate penalties are established in this legislation.

]]>2018-11-28T18:46:00+00:00Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-11-28.111.2&m=684#g112.1
Surprise, surprise. We have contributions from honourable members on this side of the House but not a squeak, not a skerrick, from the other side. They are too embarrassed or too lazy to turn up...Surprise, surprise. We have contributions from honourable members on this side of the House but not a squeak, not a skerrick, from the other side. They are too embarrassed or too lazy to turn up to justify and support their own legislation. I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018 that is currently before the House. This bill provides a remedy for students who have incurred debts from unscrupulous providers under the previous VET FEE-HELP loan scheme. The bill will introduce a broad remedy for students who have incurred a VET FEE-HELP debt as a result of inappropriate conduct by VET providers or their agents.

Labor welcomes the recrediting of the debts of thousands of students who were ripped off by dodgy for-profit training providers. More than 6,000 students have complained to the ombudsman after being charged VET FEE-HELP for courses they did not undertake. Only a small number have received relief from those unfair debts. Students should never have been expected to pay debts racked up by dodgy for-profit training providers that went rogue under this government's watch. Many students have been saddled with these unfair VET FEE-HELP debts for years. This is another example of this dysfunctional government doing very little to help ordinary Australians who are trying to become valued, skilled members of our society.

The vocational education system has fallen into crisis on the Liberal Party's watch. With five ministers in three years and a blowout in the cost of the VET FEE-HELP scheme, it is clear that this government simply doesn't care about education, much less vocational education, nor do they care about TAFE. The government knew or should have known how much money was rolling out to the providers. They knew that the great majority of students weren't graduating. They knew or ought to have known how much money the shonky operators were making.

What is the extent of the problem? We hear that students have been tricked by unscrupulous providers into racking up massive debts. We hear also that thousands of qualifications in Victoria and elsewhere have been cancelled because, seemingly, they were not worth the paper they were written on, despite the significant debts incurred. Where was the government when all of this was happening? This occurred on a lazy government's watch. How can they possibly justify to taxpayers their failure to do anything about it? Well, the answer to that is clear: they have not fronted up to explain that. This would be an embarrassment to a competent government, but this dysfunctional government has failed to act for more than five years. It now finally acts. Labor welcomes the students getting some relief, finally.

In 2014, the then education minister, Christopher Pyne, was warned of the dismal completion rates under the scheme. However, the government just sat on their hands. Meanwhile, providers continued to exploit vulnerable people and to rip off students. Despite concerns about appalling recruitment practices, in particular, at Careers Australia—these concerns were raised publicly in 2015—the coalition continued to provide and fund loans until Careers Australia eventually collapsed in May 2017. That collapse left thousands of students stranded and thousands of workers without jobs, and that was after milking this coalition government of 600 million of taxpayers' dollars. It is instructive to review the scale of the escalation of malpractice in this area. From 2009, Labor provided VET FEE-HELP scheme loans of $1.4 billion over five years, which was about $280 million in loans per year. Under the coalition, those loans skyrocketed to $1.8 billion in 2014 and a staggering $3 billion in 2015. That totalled to $6 billion from 2014 to 2016. That was overwhelmingly to private providers.

In addition to this, the Liberals have provided no leadership on VET. Ignoring the underlying flaws in the vocational education system, they have instead continued to cut funding and support to skills formation. The Productivity Commission has called the system 'a mess'. The OECD has reported that Australia doesn't have the skills to engage effectively with global value chains. What an embarrassment this government is. A recent independent report authored by Terry Moran, one of the original architects of the national system, says it is fragmented and devalued, there is no effective governance, the funding arrangements are chaotic and there is no overarching national strategy.

It is clear that TAFE has been the poor cousin even within that devalued sector, with the increased reliance upon private providers over the last 20 years. We can't have the situation where the public sector is responsible for the really capital-intensive areas or difficult delivery areas. We can't have a situation where investment in the private sector is supported the dodgy providers, who in turn have been picking the high-value but low-quality areas in our vocational training whilst offering iPads to people interested in signing up to courses without regard to any sort of outcome.

I do emphasise that there are some very good operators, particularly in Northern Tasmania within my constituency, that have been doing some fantastic things, working closely with industry and being very industry responsive. I have met with those good quality providers in person to understand what they see as the drivers of high-quality outcomes in vocational education. But, for all that, I strongly believe our public TAFE needs to be recognised again and supported, not just with fond memories for past days when TAFE ruled vocational training, but with real support and real capital funding. Money needs to be spent on refurbishment and replacement of facilities that are no longer up to standard anymore. There needs to be focus upon technical and further education as being a legitimate alternative to our perfectly appropriate attention to university training.

Our manufacturing sector in Northern Tasmania is particularly used to having thousands of highly skilled and well-paid people. It relied upon the fact they either had a TAFE education or trained on the job, many in the apprenticeship system. There is a bright future based around advanced manufacturing, building things very smartly, rather than volume production. Australian manufacturers can't compete with mass produced goods from overseas but can focus on highly skilled or discrete trades, where we have demonstrated expertise.

I bring to the House's attention a company called Definium Technologies, a local Launceston business that is successfully winning business to build low-volume complex circuit boards, single boards, computers and sensors. This is a highly specialised area of manufacturing, exploiting the internet of things. With computer boards, sensors, communications devices and new technology being manufactured in Northern Tasmania, I see the potential, for example, for substantial employment within defence-related contracting in Tasmania, employment that doesn't necessarily demand a university degree but does demand people that are highly skilled in trades like electronic engineering. These skills may ultimately lead towards a university degree, but the starting point for a future that encompasses well-paid jobs in advanced manufacturing has to, in my submission, be the reinvestment by government in trade and vocational education.

Since they were elected, the Liberals have cut more than $3 billion from TAFE, skills and apprenticeships. In his last budget as Treasurer, now Prime Minister Scott Morrison cut a further $270 million from apprenticeship funding over the next four years. For more than a year, this coalition has failed to spend a cent out of its flawed Skilling Australians Fund on an apprenticeship. All Australian should have access throughout their working lives to the education, skills and training that they need for decent jobs that allow them to live good, productive and fulfilling lives and, above all, to be active members of our communities. Labor believes that no-one should be excluded from access to vocational education and training because of financial disadvantage. They shouldn't be excluded due to course costs, fear of taking on debt or regional disadvantage.

VET, TAFE and apprenticeships are absolutely crucial to jobs and crucial to Australia's economy. A skilled and educated workforce is a national economic priority, and TAFE is the lifeblood of our vocational education and training system. Labor knows that TAFE is the backbone of our apprenticeship and technical skills education system, which is why we took a TAFE funding guarantee to the last election. There are some 28,000 people in Tasmania currently enrolled in TAFE—individuals, all of them who know firsthand the first-class skills and opportunities that going to TAFE can provide to them. Indeed, generations of Australians can attest to the importance of TAFE for our economy and for delivering the skills and knowledge necessary to ensure that Australia remains competitive on the global market.

How obvious this is to those on this side of the House! But it's clear that those on the other side—the Liberals and Nationals—just do not get it. At both the state and federal levels they appear to have an ideological problem with TAFE. This is exemplified by the fact that apprenticeship numbers have been in freefall under this government—down 30 per cent since the government came to power, or 130,000 fewer apprenticeships under the Liberals. Labor will restore public TAFE as the major provider in the vocational education and training system. Labor has always championed quality apprenticeships and will continue to ensure that more Australians can follow that trusted path into decent work.

The Labor inquiry into post-secondary education will also build on the best of Australia's vocational education and training systems, and repair the damage done by unscrupulous, for-profit providers and the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government neglect. This government has clearly failed the VET sector in that they've not done what is best for students, they've not done what is best for industry and they've not done what is best for employers. What they now offer up in this bill is to be welcomed, but it is much delayed.

It's time for an election, so that Labor can restore TAFE. Labor knows that education, in all of its forms—whether it's higher education through university degrees or whether it's technical and further education in the public sector or the private sector—is the key to happy, healthy and vibrant communities. It's the key to the sort of flexibility that will put a young person on a lifelong road towards employment and being able to be re-skilled as opportunities come along. The provision of technical, vocational, creative and semiprofessional skills through VET, TAFE and apprenticeships is absolutely vital to the growth of our economy and to the wellbeing of our local communities.

If we look at the priorities that this government offers, up until recently all it was talking about was a one-point economic plan which consisted of tax cuts—tax cuts which were supposed to trickle down magically and provide greater income or greater economic activity. We on this side of the House know that real investment in education at all levels, starting with the very youngest Australians right through to primary school, secondary school and then to education at a tertiary level in universities and TAFE, will truly drive the transformation of the Australian economy. We cannot have the OECD giving us a black mark for the fact that we have a system which is not fit for purpose. We can do better, we need a government that cares about technical and further education and that's a Labor government, if elected.

]]>2018-11-28T16:29:00+00:00Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-11-28.19.2&m=684#g21.1
We have before us the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018 and related legislation. The bill acts to increase the newly...We have before us the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018 and related legislation. The bill acts to increase the newly arrived resident's waiting period—the NARWP—which is the period of time that new Australian residents must wait before being entitled to claim certain benefits and concessions. Currently, there is a two-year waiting period for carer payment, youth allowance, Austudy payment, Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, special benefit bereavement allowance, widow allowance and parenting payment.

The government had originally proposed to increase these waiting periods to four years—four years, a wholly unreasonable period—and to increase four-year waiting periods for family assistance, the Paid Parental Leave scheme and dad and partner pay. Thankfully, following extensive negotiations with Labor, the government has agreed to reduce many of these proposed waiting times. However, let me make this clear: Labor would never have proposed this bill and the measures contained within this bill. And we certainly would not have countenanced the government's policy in its original form.

The application of across-the-board, four-year waiting periods for many permanent residents would cause too much hardship—hardship for vulnerable people, vulnerable families and children. But in agreeing not to oppose the significantly reduced waiting periods proposal put forward by the government we have been pragmatic, because the alternative was to leave the entirety of this proposal in the hands of the Senate crossbench and, of course, the One Nation party. It would be deeply irresponsible to allow that party—One Nation—to determine policy in this area. We've done this to ameliorate the harshness of these measures and to limit the impact of this change as much as possible.

We've also achieved the best outcome we possibly can to protect vulnerable people. Labor has secured major concessions to protect vulnerable people, families and children, including: no waiting period for family tax benefit part B; no increase in the waiting period for carer payment; a one-year waiting period for family tax benefit part A; a one-year waiting period for carer allowance; a two-year waiting period for paid parental leave and dad and partner pay; New Zealanders, orphan visa holders and remaining relative visa holders are excluded from these changes; and there is expanded access to special benefit when people's circumstances change, including, it should be noted, in the case of domestic and family violence. Importantly, exemptions to waiting periods for people who become lone parents will also remain, and people on refugee and humanitarian visas, as well as those who become citizens, are exempt from these changes.

The government's four-year waiting periods would have caused great hardship for thousands of families and their children. By securing these amendments, Labor has ensured that 49,000 families and 107,000 children will be protected from the family tax benefit waiting period each year, and that 21,000 people will avoid the impacts of waiting periods for other payments.

When the minister introduced this bill to the House in its original form back in February he said that the measures in the bill were designed to promote financial independence and self-sufficiency for newly arrived migrants. Of course, it is important that new Australian show that they can support themselves financially whilst they settle in Australia. Indeed, the experience is that most migrants quickly secure work and that they do not need to access social security. This is something that I've seen firsthand through the work of an organisation called The Tasmania Opportunity, TTO, in my electorate of Bass.

TTO is a community think tank based in Launceston. It is operating an 18-month pilot scheme called Refugee Employment Pathways, REP, to demonstrate the viability or otherwise of finding full-time employment for previously unemployed Afghan Hazara men in Northern Tasmania. TTO has consulted with the local Hazara community, the Tasmanian government, local councils, the agricultural and construction sectors, community groups and the migrant sector. It works, in my experience, in an open and collaborative manner. In its first nine months, Refugee Employment Pathways have successfully found agricultural employment for six men near Deloraine, a fantastic outcome that indicates such programs can be successful in securing employment for migrants.

This is important, because research indicates that there are five key areas for successful relocation of migrant communities into regional or rural areas—that is, housing, jobs, education services, health services and, most importantly, social inclusion. Once migrants have been supported through the early stages of their settlement journey, they are not only self-sufficient but contribute enormously to our economy and to our community. They do contribute. They add economically and they enrich our communities in many ways. However, we also know that life happens in its sometimes unpredictable ups and downs. People's circumstances can change, and it is important that support is available when that happens.

This conservative government—'liberal' in name only—has tried to make it harder for new Australians at every turn. They've tried to push through unfair changes to our citizenship and antidiscrimination laws. They also wanted to require new migrants to have university level English in order to gain citizenship. And now they were pushing for extended waiting periods for social support, despite there being little evidence that there is a sound public policy justification for this change. In order to reduce the impact of the government's proposed new resident waiting periods, Labor has agreed to support an amended version of this bill. These decisions have been made to protect those on lowest incomes, their families and their children. They're not easy decisions and Labor would not have proposed these extensions to resident waiting periods. Thank you.

]]>2018-11-28T11:05:00+00:00Melbourne: Attacks | Statements on Indulgence | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-11-27.137.2&m=684#g143.1
I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this statement of indulgence with respect to the events that occurred in Bourke Street, Melbourne, on Friday, 9 November 2018. I've read&#8212;indeed,...I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this statement of indulgence with respect to the events that occurred in Bourke Street, Melbourne, on Friday, 9 November 2018. I've read—indeed, heard—many heartfelt tributes to Sisto Malaspina, who was killed in the attack. He was clearly, and justifiably, regarded as a Melbourne institution. From those tributes, he appeared to me to embody an aspect of Melbourne that speaks of its open, friendly engagement with people from all cultures and the magic that comes from the combination of hospitality, wine, coffee, and food.

But I want to speak today about a constituent. That constituent is Rod Patterson, who is one of the persons injured in the attack. Another person was injured—a 24-year-old security guard. It is appropriate that I explain that less than two weeks before this incident Rod gave an address at my uncle's funeral. Rod gave a marvellous address encapsulating the life, loves, and activities of my uncle, Terry Powell. Rod and Terry were good friends, neighbours, and co-conspirators in many escapades—sometimes involving late-night beers—and saw each other's children grow up. I know that Terry would not have been surprised that Rod ran towards a burning vehicle, implicitly placing himself in danger—even if this had been some sort of benign accident—seemingly without care for his safety. Rod was a former firefighter. He said in an interview with ABC after his release from hospital:

The old fireman Rod came out of me. I got up, raced over, and I'm looking inside the cabin, because the driver side door was burst open, to see whether there was someone I was going to pull out, and there was no-one inside.

Rod was attacked, as was Sisto and the other victim. Sisto was fatally stabbed. Rod ended up receiving a 10-centimetre-long gash that had cut through muscle and, importantly, an artery, and required more than 120 internal and external stitches.

As we've heard today, we live in a fortunate country, where bystanders will rush towards danger, without consideration for their safety, in order to assist those who might require their help. It is difficult for us to understand the motivations behind such terror attacks—whether or not the perpetrator suffers from a mental illness or whether the delusion is driven by a particular ideology. But it's also difficult to understand that our police, firefighters, paramedics and our hospital surgeons, nurses, and OA staff have to engage with the consequences of those deluded acts, and do so with such confidence that they are doing the right thing in protecting the safety of the general public. I know that training assists in ensuring that even retired firefighters instinctively react—as they've done in the past—to protect lives and rescue those in danger. We owe all of them a debt of gratitude for their service—indeed, their instinctive reactions. I think also of the police who may have thought that they were attending a traffic accident and ultimately had to act at the highest level to protect human life—ultimately confronting the offender.

Such is the immediacy of modern communication that many of us saw, on hastily shot video shared on social media, the attack and the aftermath of the incident in almost real-time, whatever we were doing at that time and wherever we were. But this brings me back to my acknowledgement of the actions of Rod Patterson. Just as communication of the terror incident spread through social media, multiple informal and formal networks shared the information that a Northern Tasmanian man had been involved and had been injured as a result of the terror attack. The fact that a person that many people in my community know and trust was caught in the Bourke Street terror attack emphasised to me that security long ago ceased to be regarded as an abstract consideration.

We know that our response to the threat of terrorism cannot and must not be one-dimensional. The fact is that a person seeking to do harm as a terrorist or, for that matter, to exploit public fear for notoriety for whatever purpose can utilise low-tech means to cause that harm. In this environment a person may use a vehicle as a weapon or could, as in this case, use LPG cylinders and a knife for deadly effect.

I would like to think that, in assessing the risks of homegrown terrorism, proper regard is had to the likelihood that a mentally ill person either might be motivated to cause harm to others based upon a delusion or may in turn be susceptible to manipulation to achieve that same end. In essence, therefore, just as we have learned that engagement with particular ethnic and religious communities is important to ensure that dangerous ideologies are identified and reported, so too do we need to be conscious that at least in the area of mental health there may be many undiagnosed and untreated persons who may pose a threat if they become exposed to particular ideologies or their delusions lead them to believe that confrontation with police and/or security services can further their misguided objectives. In other words, the identification of potential risks to public safety extends beyond merely a review of persons who may have been exposed to terrorist ideology. It also extends to a person who by reason of their particular circumstances or their mental health or drug induced delusions may be more susceptible to seeing violence as a tool that they can use to make a statement, whether that statement is for political purposes or is later coopted for political purposes or not.

Having said that, the undeniable truth is that, whether Victoria Police faced that particular assailant on 9 November or whether they faced another assailant in a different situation on another sort of criminal rampage, they were and are required to act to protect human life. My most heartfelt thanks and respect is extended to all the first responders—the police, the paramedics, the ambulance officers and others who step in to address the aftermath of significant public events occasioning trauma and/or death. Sometimes those responders are volunteers in every sense of the word. Rod Patterson was one such volunteer. He ran into danger and was subsequently stabbed in the head for his trouble.

Rod, I know my fellow citizens of Launceston and Northern Tasmania are proud of your actions in seeking to rescue someone from a burning vehicle but ending up in hospital as a result of the attack. Your generosity of spirit and your willingness to chip in and help assorted charities and assorted causes in my community, whether in business or in your personal life, mean that there are many people wishing you the very best for a safe and speedy recovery. Well done, Rod.

Sisto, I'm sorry I didn't get to meet you. It's clear to me that your legend will live on.

]]>2018-11-27T18:00:00+00:00National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse | Motions | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-10-24.163.2&m=684#g167.1
I thank the member for Moreton for his contribution, which really emphasises the fact that the trauma associated with these most horrible crimes, the abuses, extends throughout our communities....I thank the member for Moreton for his contribution, which really emphasises the fact that the trauma associated with these most horrible crimes, the abuses, extends throughout our communities. Those ripples that have been occasioned by the evil do not stop at one door; they flow right through our communities. As my friend indicated earlier, there are sometimes special days of national timeless significance here in Parliament House. Monday was particularly extraordinary as we delivered a national apology to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. I'm proud to have the opportunity to echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition—that the apology was offered with humility, with honesty and with hope for healing now. I'm proud to be able to add my voice to the chorus of voices that say sorry and to acknowledge the hurt, the betrayal, the abuse of power and the trauma that many are still dealing with today, including support workers.

I and my staff have had to sit face to face with constituents and hear firsthand of the abuse and trauma that they were subjected to as children. That is a small slice of the shameful part of Australia's shared history as a nation. I'm confident my colleagues—on both sides of the House, as this is a matter beyond politics—have had similar experiences. I have been transfixed by their stories, as I was transfixed this morning, and devastated by what they had to endure. I listened to those stories. Hearing the personal stories from survivors is made even more difficult knowing that there are likely some details left out—details too painful to speak or even remember, details that were held deeply within a vast cohort of bruised and injured children who are now adults.

I cannot imagine the trauma which cannot be vocalised for fear of further trauma and the shame that keeps a person silent and trapped in their memories, however traumatic the original offence, the subsequent treatment or lack of attention to their plight or calls for help. I take this opportunity to celebrate the bravery and strength of those who've shared their stories for the benefit of the next generation of Australian children. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse received 26,000 letters, 40,000 phone calls and held over 8,000 private sessions. Everyone who was willing to share their experiences of abuse as a child in an institutional setting is to be commended and celebrated. That took real courage—courage that needs to be recognised. And for those who could not face the demons visited upon them in their childhood, we must say that we understand and we support them. We understand how this trauma can be so significant that it cannot be disclosed. We must honour all victims and survivors of child sexual abuse by delivering in full on the promise of the royal commission and its recommendations.

We have a responsibility to ensure that the words we heard in this place on Monday, and the words uttered since then, translate into action. The Leader of the Opposition put it well when he said:

We are never going to get a better set of opinions than this royal commission. We are never going to be presented with a more comprehensive set of solutions than this royal commission.

I agree. This is not the time for either governments or institutions to haggle over dollars or to use the legal system to obfuscate and to delay the cause of justice. The words of the apology may not count for anything by themselves to the extent that these words are not matched by action, I respect that sentiment. To the people who have been denied justice for so long, a delayed apology without redress, without action, can seem inadequate. That is why our actions in the implementation of the royal commission, the actions of those who have been placed fairly and squarely in the eye of the royal commission for creating and/or maintaining a culture that did not protect vulnerable children, should be scrutinised so that governments and institutions are held to account. There must be a commitment to action, and a commitment that is renewed and tested regularly. Time will tell as to whether we will be found wanting or not. I commend this motion to the House.

]]>2018-10-24T12:16:00+00:00Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-10-23.88.2&m=684#g96.15
Nothing.Nothing. ]]>2018-10-23T17:48:00+00:00Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-10-23.88.2&m=684#g88.3
As I said before the interruption, there are also factors, such as the age profile of Tasmanians, their health profile and their lack of educational attainment, which is reflected in significant...As I said before the interruption, there are also factors, such as the age profile of Tasmanians, their health profile and their lack of educational attainment, which is reflected in significant social disadvantage, which in turn mean that there are additional demands upon services, particularly health services, in our public hospitals, which impose additional financial burdens upon the state budget. On a number of occasions, I've risen in this place to offer my contribution about what can be done to improve the economic performance of Tasmania, improving health outcomes and education outcomes with long-term investment in education, health literacy and sustainable economic growth. But the fact remains that there are vital services—particularly our presently ailing, stressed health system—which are sustained to a large part by Tasmania's share of GST revenue.

There's recently been public discussion about whether the present Tasmanian Liberal government has been devoting a sufficient share of GST revenue towards health funding. I agree with the general proposition that health is being underfunded from Tasmania's GST revenue. Nevertheless, future state governments need flexibility as to how GST revenue is expended, given that it is untied revenue and can be spent in the best interests of a state. It's up to the present state Liberal government—indeed, any future government of any persuasion—to justify how it spends GST revenue, particularly if economic analysis suggests that there may be an underspend with respect to a vital service such as health.

Given the size of the Tasmanian budget and the disproportionate role that GST revenue plays in the provision of services in Tasmania, the provision of a legislated guarantee such as is incorporated in this bill is vitally important. Having regard to the statistics—indeed, the furious agreement by all state premiers and treasurers that a legislated guarantee was necessary—what was this government's response, at least initially? For weeks, the government, led by this Prime Minister as Treasurer, denied that such a guarantee was necessary. Even as the premiers and treasurers called for a guarantee that no state was left worse off under the changes to the GST, including Premier Will Hodgman and his Treasurer, Peter Gutwein, the Prime Minister ignored those calls. Indeed, he waited until the last possible moment to give a guarantee that no state or territory would be worse off under changes to the GST. If the Prime Minister really cared about Tasmania and the share of GST that funds Tasmanian hospitals and schools, he would have committed to a guarantee immediately.

Labor recognised that a legislated guarantee was necessary, and I'm very pleased that the government finally realised that a legislated guarantee was appropriate. I would like, nevertheless, to place on record my concern and the concern of my Tasmanian Labor colleagues as to what might happen at the end of the period under which the guarantee is legislated. Given the reliance that the Tasmanian state budget places upon Commonwealth payments as a proportion of total income and, indeed, the fact that services like health and education take the lion's share of budget expenditure, there will need to be very careful consideration of the long-term sustainability of Commonwealth payments to the Tasmanian budget. There is to be a Productivity Commission review at that time to consider the effectiveness of the transitional arrangements.

I would not want—nor would any Tasmanian want—to be accused of being a beggar or a mendicant for seeking what is necessary to place the funding of essential services on an equally reasonable footing with other jurisdictions under any system which is to replace the current system of horizontal fiscal equalisation. Tasmanians—and, for that matter, the residents of any other state—need to understand that, at the end of the transition period, there may be a requirement for further adjustment and further support and/or grants through other means to support essential services within a state jurisdiction. Likewise, it would not be reasonable to have the Productivity Commission insist that, for example, any particular jurisdiction would be required to sell state owned assets as a condition of enjoying further Commonwealth support. I sincerely hope that, at the end of the transitional period, there will be a federal Labor government that will be in a position to act upon these concerns and, in particular, the concerns expressed by the shadow Treasurer for the future finances of Tasmania.

The present Prime Minister is no friend to Tasmania. My good friend the member for Franklin has written an opinion piece on this very issue. It's useful to recount what she's said as to the Prime Minister's record in his dealings with Tasmania, particularly in the recent past. I must refer to the recent past because the simple fact is that, as Treasurer in this term, he spent more time in Germany than in Tasmania. He does not understand the limitations imposed upon the Tasmanian budget, which are, in the main, unrelated to decisions which might be made by either a state Liberal or a state Labor government. When he finally visited as Prime Minister this month, he came with no new ideas and no new plans for our state. Indeed, his visit to our state just highlighted how Tasmania had been forgotten by him and successive Liberal governments since 2013. In Queenstown, for example, he re-announced the government's NBN solution for the west coast of our state with great fanfare but overlooked some important facts. Only after a community campaign and Labor's promise to deliver fibre-to-the-premises NBN did his government finally commit to second-rate fibre to the node. When he visited Lake Plimsoll to highlight the Battery of the Nation projects, he offered no firm commitment to fund the pumped hydro projects and he forgot to mention that he has no energy policy whatsoever.

Under the Liberals' watch, we've also seen a significant decrease in the number of public sector jobs—jobs that would help support the Tasmanian budget. Since 2013, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has slashed almost 500 Australian Public Service jobs from Tasmania. I again express my thanks to the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, for his advocacy on behalf of Tasmania and in ensuring that all states receive some measure of protection with respect to their fair share of GST in this legislation.

]]>2018-10-23T16:15:00+00:00Immigration Detention | Statements by Members | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-10-23.24.1&m=684#g24.2
There are occasions when you are reminded about the privilege that it is to serve in this place as a member or a senator&#8212;and, indeed, yesterday, on the occasion of the delivery of the...There are occasions when you are reminded about the privilege that it is to serve in this place as a member or a senator—and, indeed, yesterday, on the occasion of the delivery of the apology, was one such day. But in my mind, there was one issue left unsaid, not discussed. This produced an opportunity for people to email and bring to the attention of members of parliament an issue that I think is vitally important—that is, the treatment of children who are presently on the island of Nauru. It's important that this parliament acts as soon as it can to give effect to the medical advice that is available to the minister to enable the repatriation of children who are suffering from psychological damage on Nauru. There is also an opportunity for members of our communities to take positive action. A small group in my electorate raised, in the course of an event on Saturday night, the amazing amount of $11,517 in order to assist the work of the Asylum Seeker Resource Network. I commend the efforts of that small group. ]]>2018-10-23T13:51:00+00:00Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-10-23.3.2&m=684#g9.1
I would like to make some observations with respect to the member for Forrest's contribution that's just been delivered. Of course, the elephant in the room that she hasn't mentioned is the fact...I would like to make some observations with respect to the member for Forrest's contribution that's just been delivered. Of course, the elephant in the room that she hasn't mentioned is the fact that she's been part of a government that's been in power for over five years. It's taken it over five years to address what's certainly been an urgent issue as far as the Western Australian voting public is concerned. I think it's disingenuous and it's not appropriate for this government to ignore the efforts that have been made on a bipartisan basis to deliver GST equity for WA. It is vitally important for the government to take a moment to reflect, in a positive manner, upon the fact that this has been achieved by co-operation at both a state and a Commonwealth level, and indeed finally to reflect the concerns expressed by all state premiers and all state treasurers with respect to the legislating of a guarantee that no state will be worse off.

With that introduction, I'm pleased to be able to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. I'm particularly pleased to rise to support the comments and observations of the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon. The history of Commonwealth-state relations, particularly Commonwealth-state financial relations, is long and complex. Sometimes that relationship can be encompassed in throwaway lines. I can't go past, for example, the observation attributed to Paul Keating: 'Never get between a Premier and a bucket of money.'

This legislation is required to address shortcomings in the system of horizontal fiscal equalisation, a system which has evolved since the 1930s and was most recently overhauled with the introduction of the GST in the year 2000. But, in practical terms, the effect of horizontal fiscal equalisation, the distribution of GST and the allocation of grants to states can materially affect the ability of states within our federation to address the provision of services, construction of vital infrastructure and, of course, planning for a secure future for that state.

Western Australia has prosecuted a case—particularly with the sound advocacy of my caucus colleagues from that state—for the present arrangements to be amended to reflect the shortfall in GST derived from economic activity within that state but lost to the state under the current system of horizontal fiscal equalisation. In very real and practical terms, Western Australians have felt that they have not received a fair share of the GST revenue which has been generated within their state.

But it's important to acknowledge that, as a federation, each of the states will, from time to time, as will the territories, prosecute a case for particular recognition as to challenges facing that state or territory. In the case of Western Australia, the simple fact of the matter was that GST revenue generated by the resources boom over an extended period depressed the amount returned to the state to a historic low.

It can also be fairly said that the former Western Australian Liberal state government and its then Treasurer squandered the proceeds of the mining boom with an almost contumacious disregard for the likely effect of the GST distribution formula on future state finances. I say this not to justify the lack of action with respect to addressing the cause of Western Australia receiving a fair share of GST, but rather to emphasise that the present Attorney-General, in his then role as state Treasurer, proceeded on the basis that the GST distribution formula would be adjusted, without in fact prosecuting that case with any particular vigour. That was either, in my submission, recklessness or blind disregard for the financial stability of his state.

My home state of Tasmania is disproportionately reliant on GST revenue. In 2018-19, Tasmania's total general government revenue is expected to be approximately $6.2 billion. Tasmania's largest source of revenue is GST revenue, estimated to be almost $2.5 billion in 2018-19, or approximately 40 per cent of our state's total revenue. This is a larger proportion than for any other jurisdiction except the Northern Territory. Tasmania will receive $1.1 billion more in GST revenue than its population share of $1.4 billion in 2018-19 because of the current distribution under horizontal fiscal equalisation. The current distribution of revenue represents 64 per cent of Tasmania's health expenditure, or 71 per cent of education expenditure, based on 2017-18 figures. These figures demonstrate the seriousness of protecting Tasmania's fair share of the GST.

The backdrop to this threat is the legacy of the Abbott government's cuts to health and education in the 2014 budget, estimated to be $2.1 billion for Tasmania, over 10 years, at the time. Tasmania's health and education systems are already behind the rest of the nation. Saul Eslake's Tasmania report presented data from the ABS National Health Survey conducted in 2014-15, which showed that a lower proportion of Tasmanians assessed their health status as 'excellent' or 'very good', and a higher proportion as 'fair' or 'poor', than of the general population of any other state or territory. Tasmanians are notably more intensive in their use of hospital facilities than people living in other states and territories. Conversely, Tasmanians are, in general, less well educated than people living in other parts of Australia or, indeed, other regional parts of Australia.

Tasmanians' reliance on GST revenue is not the product of fiscal recklessness or incompetence. It is the inevitable consequence of a small state, a federation state, that has been constrained—in some cases, by decisions imposed upon the state by the operation of federal law, in order to constrain particular decisions, including the development and exploitation of resources of the state. Tasmania has a significant proportion of its land mass in reserves. That should ensure that the beauty, heritage value and unique aspects of Tasmania are preserved for future generations. That is a good thing. It is something for all Tasmanians and, indeed, all Australians to be rightly proud of and to celebrate. But this inevitably means that some development, whether appropriate or not, may not proceed and, indeed, should not proceed if there are adverse consequences to the natural heritage of Tasmania.

There are also other factors like the age profile of Tasmanians, their health profile and their lack of educational attainment, which I have referred to previously, which is reflected in significant social disadvantage and which in turn means there are additional demands upon services.

]]>2018-10-23T13:22:00+00:00Asylum Seekers | Statements by Members | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-10-22.81.1&m=684#g81.2
Today this parliament issued a national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. I must acknowledge the extraordinary work that was done to advocate for the royal...Today this parliament issued a national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. I must acknowledge the extraordinary work that was done to advocate for the royal commission, particularly considering the shameful denial of the truth of child sexual abuse. Today is a day to honour not just those who had the political will to implement a royal commission but also those who argued against the weight of public opinion to garner support for victims and survivors.

The role of public interest advocacy as a tool and driver for change should not be underestimated. I received many representations on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru. I recently wrote to the minister enclosing a great number of personal letters seeking a more compassionate and direct response to the plight of children presently on Nauru. I must say, whenever I receive a letter from a child highlighting the plight of children presently on Nauru, I cannot ignore the fact that there is potential for further shared trauma involved in ignoring the plight of those children.

Just as we facilitated a system whereby the denial of sexual abuse and violence against the abused children was subject to today's apology, we must face the fact that the potential for trauma, for damage to the children on Nauru should be enough to drive us to action. We must act. We must listen to those advocating for their repatriation, medical assessment and treatment.

]]>2018-10-22T16:32:00+00:00Telecommunications | Constituency Statements | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-10-18.119.1&m=684#g119.2
We are indeed privileged in this place, in Australia's parliament, to be in one of the most digitally and physically connected environments in Australia. This morning, we've experienced...We are indeed privileged in this place, in Australia's parliament, to be in one of the most digitally and physically connected environments in Australia. This morning, we've experienced significant network outages which have occasioned some degree of inconvenience and frustration to people working in this building. But, of course, that's brought home to me the importance of digital connectivity for our constituents, not just in the cities but also in the regions.

I've been very pleased to participate in the government's Mobile Black Spot Program, seeking expressions of interest from people within my electorate to make submissions about where they see there is a lack of connectivity. We should all recognise that this issue of digital connectivity is front and centre not just for business but also for families. Indeed, the European Union recognises that access to the internet is a human right. The feedback that I and my office have received with respect to the issue of mobile black spots is significant. There are areas in the Tamar Valley and in the north-east of Tasmania that have been entered onto the database of mobile black spots as meriting some attention with respect to mobile black spots.

I've recently served as Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth. We had an inquiry into the potential for digital trade. This really emphasises how a digital future may produce significant potential for small and larger businesses all across Australia. The concept of trade itself has evolved over time. It used to be that trade was highly specialised. Indeed, until relatively recently it involved large organisations putting goods onto container vessels and travelling across the world. But a digital future now enables the smallest of enterprises to act as a large enterprise and to trade from a kitchen or a garage in much the same way that those digital giants that we now experience were first created in Silicon Valley. One example of that in Tasmania is in a small place called Legana in the Tamar Valley. It is a very picturesque place but a rapidly growing suburban area. It hosts an organisation called Pivot Maritime. Pivot Maritime is a world leader in marine simulation technology, only enabled because it's got access to world-class quality NBN.

]]>2018-10-18T10:06:00+00:00Bass Electorate: Launceston General Hospital | Constituency Statements | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-10-17.162.1&m=684#g162.2
I'd like to report to the House an issue that has arisen, particularly in my constituency of Bass. Last Friday I attended a very special event held at Ockerby Gardens, which is on the fringes of...I'd like to report to the House an issue that has arisen, particularly in my constituency of Bass. Last Friday I attended a very special event held at Ockerby Gardens, which is on the fringes of the Launceston General Hospital's campus in Launceston. This was a rally held by the ANMF and other associated health unions, and of course other unions, in support of their industrial action. The rally was held to commemorate, if that's the right word, 100 continuous days of a vigil that's been undertaken by the emergency department staff of the Launceston General Hospital.

The Launceston General Hospital is a well-respected institution within Bass. It's relied upon by many of the constituents within my electorate, and for good purpose. But the emergency department is suffering under significant strain, and the Tasmanian state Liberal government has refused to adequately resource the hospital. We have the extraordinary situation where we have dedicated emergency department staff holding a vigil for 100 days during the course of a Tasmanian winter—I don't need to remind members in this place as to what a Tasmanian winter might involve. Every day, rain or shine, those members of the emergency department have been holding a vigil under what they call their Bring Your Own Bed campaign.

Unfortunately, the Launceston General Hospital emergency department has some of the worst statistics in the nation for compliance with emergency department waiting times. This is something which is absolutely disgraceful but not something that can be visited upon the dedicated staff within the Launceston General Hospital. The blame for this purely lies with a state government which is wilfully blind and refuses to listen to the concerns of the workers at the Launceston General Hospital. In any one 24-hour waiting period there may be up to 60 patients in the emergency department, which may consist of: up to 24 patients waiting in inpatient ward beds; up to eight ambulances ramped at any one time; and, at one point, up to five category 2 patients in the waiting room. This creates enormous stress and anxiety for those who work on the frontline of our health system. It's something that can't be ignored. It is a crisis. It's a crisis that needs to be addressed by a state government which is wilfully blind and refuses to listen.

]]>2018-10-17T10:55:00+00:00Launceston General Hospital | Adjournment | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-10-17.141.2&m=684#g141.3
In August last year I said in this place that the failure of the Tasmanian health minister, Michael Ferguson, to provide adequate resources to alleviate bed block within the Launceston General...In August last year I said in this place that the failure of the Tasmanian health minister, Michael Ferguson, to provide adequate resources to alleviate bed block within the Launceston General Hospital and to move admitted patients out of a stressed Emergency Department was creating a crisis—a well-documented ramping crisis—for our ambulance service. In February of this year I said that it is a very sad fact that we are currently facing a crisis in the Tasmanian health system.

Eight months have passed since then. The crisis at the Launceston General Hospital has escalated. Yesterday the latest Tasmanian health service annual report was formally released. It cast an ever-worsening shadow on the state of the state's second largest public hospital, the LGH, and its under-resourced emergency department. Of course, I acknowledge that this is a snapshot on an annual basis of the performance of a significant public health resource, a vital resource for people in Northern Tasmania. Less than 65 per cent of emergency department presentations are seen within the recommended time frame—less than 65 per cent! Emergency department staff at the LGH have reported publicly that they've had to contend with huge numbers of presentations to the department, even before the winter flu season, with almost continuous bed block. They've been forced to attend to—of necessity—unstable patients in the waiting room of the emergency department. In one 24-hour period there were up to 60 patients in the emergency department, up to 24 patients waiting for access to inpatient ward beds, up to eight ambulances ramped at one time, and, at one point, up to five category 2 patients in the waiting room. Category 2 patients are those with imminently life-threatening conditions. These patients should be seen by a treating doctor or nurse within 10 minutes of arriving.

I cannot say enough here tonight in this chamber to reflect my respect and admiration for and my thanks to the tireless and overworked staff at the LGH, with their dedication to patient care in such dire circumstances. To highlight the unacceptable pressure and their dedication to patient safety, members of the ANMF have been holding rolling vigils outside the LGH every day for over 100 days as part of their Bring Your Own Bed Campaign. This commenced prior to winter falling in Northern Tasmania. I've attended a number of these vigils. They are held every afternoon at the shift change for the LGH Emergency Department, rain or shine, but they always emphasise patient safety and quality of care. I've heard firsthand of the utter stress, the anxiety and the uncertainty that this untenable situation has caused.

I am concerned and Northern Tasmanians have joined me in expressing their concern that, while patients and staff are suffering, the Tasmanian government sits idle and refuses to fund permanently open beds. Over the last six years the LGH has seen an increase in presentations of over 1,500 annually and a significant increase in patient acuity. An additional 100 resuscitation presentations and 1,106 category 2 presentations have occurred during this time. This means that there are, potentially, an additional 1,200 patients requiring access to inpatient beds. These patients are presenting sicker and with multiple acute conditions. As I said earlier, staff have engaged in industrial action since March this year to highlight the continuous pressures on the ED and, indeed, the entire hospital, as a result of bed block. Their goodwill and their stamina is maintaining this health system within Northern Tasmania.

Their daily vigils show their support for their colleagues and, importantly, their patients, as an increasing sign of desperation to have this dire situation addressed by the state government. The present situation is only enabled by the incredible commitment of this staff to their patients and their amazingly cohesive team. In other words, this hopeless Tasmanian Liberal state government misuses the goodwill and professionalism of dedicated nursing and support staff to achieve safe health outcomes. This cannot be sustainable. There will be a time when even their absolute best at some point will not be enough.

It is not good enough. Northern Tasmanians deserve better. Our nurses, doctors and support staff deserve better—a government and a health minister that care about supplying resources to enable the hospital to function safely and effectively. You cannot rely on the goodwill and dedication of staff going above and beyond their duty.